How Can Humanity *Not* Be a Polytypic Set of Species

Given that we have such varied ancestral hominid admixture and genetics? And as one major example, almost 1/5th or 20% of sub-Saharan Africans genome (though it may vary by tribe) comes from this archaic homin species in picrel? That is a very big difference, and one would that that alone should qualify us as polytypic, though there are many other arguments that can be made. What say you?

Attached: 7ef40c575ea175d958d91899b2a49802a84189dca78038b9496184304b88c300_1.jpg (1080x1123, 131.44K)

Can burgers finally stop asking
>but why do they act like that?
They're fucking primordial apes.

Attached: 1659363575410666.webm (320x568, 1.01M)

It is obvious that we are different species. With varies genomes and phenotypes and cognition
and behavioral averages and personalities. SS Africans one species, Australian Aborigines another, and Europeans, MENAs and Asians form another divided by subspecies.

Erectus is basicaly just a big ape, highly doubt they interbred with Sapiences.

Whatever it was, we aren't really sure exactly. But it was another species, and it was rather primitive.

Erectus was also an actual human, being part of Homo. So it is actually possible.

Homo is the genus, not the species

I know that. All members of the genus Homo are types of human.

So Homo neanderthalensis, if still extant, would be a "human" and a "race", as *well* as a separate species.

Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's)

Bro, interbred species lead to massively damaged DNA, erectus did not interbred with cro magnon, it's very unlikely that their offspring would lead to a healthy population of subspecies

I meant interbred genus

They are the *same* genus. Homo sapiens,and Homo erectus. The difference is not too great, and it was not a perfect half and half hybridization, they introgressed the erectus genetics into their larger population. It could also have been the somewhat more advanced habilis, also a type of human.

Niggers are not people.

There’s less genetic difference between lions and tigers

We are not the same.

Attached: nig.webm (480x324, 1.15M)

It is literally no different than Europeans having mixed with Neanderthal and having 1-2% of our genome come from that, or NE Asians doing the same for 4-6 (and also some erectus and Denisovans), or Australian Aborigines with Denisovans and others, it's just that SS Africans have *much* more primitive archaic DN.

Lol, I know they are the same genus but go and try to interbreed different genus to see what happens. There's a reason homo erectus was the only that lasted so long, they couldn't be bred with modern humans and got slowly killed off.

I'd like to see the data on that

It is very different, the older classifications of homo SAPIENS neanderthalis were right, they are the same species as the cro Magnon and same goes for denisovan, we are sapiens sapiens, a subspecies of those interbred SPECIES, not genus

I do not understand why you are saying interred *genus*. All of these hominids are the same species. And maybe the admixture was not frequently successful UT we *know* it happened. Denisovans also admixedwith erectus. We also see the genes in Asians.

As for the Africans, again, it could have been habilis.

Are the same genus, not species. And Homo neanderthalensis is not Homo sapient neanderthalensis. It is a legitimate different species. Lots of different species mix. Like wolves and coyotes. We are at least that different from SS Africans.

It is. Those "arguments" are in most cases non-arguments, and the ones that are actually arguments are wrong.
Artificial intelligence or extraterrestrials would classify us as different species if applying the same standard to all life.

Because homo is the genus, not the species

I disagree, the older classifications were right it is the same species, this may be controversial but all those 'modern' homos are sapiens also

lmao imagine being so insecure that you try to argue that neanderthals were actually just HS all alone and modern science is wrong.